Thursday, January 26, 2012

Commentary on North Avenue

I have been sidelined by a nasty cold and so have not been down to North Avenue since Tuesday afternoon. If Dan is to be believed, late that afternoon a citizen took action to board up the building and get the street opened up. So ends a chapter of the story about this building, a tale that began with a disastrous fire on Dec. 17 and now seems headed for a possibly happy ending as part of a long-awaited push for development on North Avenue.

From the Park Avenue side, this building appears very substantial and, if plans to keep the facade are true, perhaps new construction can take place behind it.
It might be tricky, however, as direct access to the rear of the building appears to be blocked by other structures.
The back of the building was a big mess on Jan. 24.

Over the years, Plaintalker has taken an interest in the state's landlord-tenant law. One aspect of the law, as described in the "Truth in Renting" booklet that every tenant is supposed to receive from the landlord, is that the identity of the landlord and emergency contact numbers are required to be posted in rental property and to be kept on file with the city. Apparently this was not the case here, because the landlord's address was listed as the same as the North Avenue building when according to merchants and former tenants, he lives in California.

Technically, the issue of the landlord's true identity and other requirements of the state law only kicks in every five years, when multi-family inspections take place. Click here to see the law. However, Plaintalker can attest to the fact that it may not happen even then.

One way to remind landlords of this obligation might be for Inspections to check on it at the time of other visits to the premises, whether for certificates of compliance, area inspections or specific complaints. A form with all the required information is supposed to be posted in the building and filed with the City Clerk.

The North Avenue saga seems destined for more twists and turns as Landmark acquires various buildings on the block and those who don't want to sell exercise whatever rights they have. Stay tuned.

Progress at last on North Avenue development could give the mayor something to brag about, just as The Monarch did in her second election bid. The North Avenue Historic District is referenced on the Landmark web site. (Click on Development.) Maybe 2012 will be the year for action.

--Bernice

3 comments:

  1. The city is woefully inept at keeping landlords accountable for their buildings, and treatment of renters.

    Renters should remember, that although they do no directly pay taxes, when taxes go up for the landlord, it shows up in your rent, so renters should be just as involved in the city as homeowners.

    Again, where is the economic development? Any signs that indicate new stores are coming? Anyone in Plainfield upset that we have a diverse community without a downtown to accommodate it?

    Really, people, what is your problem?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To Anonymous at 6:47AM : The city is the victim here...unlike other cities we weren't fortunate to find people willing to buy property who voluntarily maintained their properties, invested in them and kept them as an asset to the city.. The City of Plainfield is the victim here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To 12:47pm - With all due respect, that is why Plainfield expects nothing - because we always make excuses for ourselves, take the victim stance, and throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can do about it.

    We are not victims, we are underserved by the people whose job it is to make sure landlords, and the citizens of this city comply with ordinances on the book. There are ordinances that require landlords to keep up their property - they do not. Why? Because the city does not enforce the ordinance.

    Why would someone spend money on keeping up a building, and eat into their profits if they did not have to? Why would someone pay attention to any law or ordinance that is not enforced? The answer plain and simple is because our laws are not enforced, and when they are not enforced, the stop having power.

    To your comment, "the city doesn't find people who maintain their properties". I respectfully disagree. The city allows people to buy property in Plainfield and to not maintain their properties.

    Why is Westfield any different from Plainfield? Because the city ensures that the ordinances are upheld. I can tell you that over 50 years ago, I would visit relatives in Westfield, and it looked nothing like it does today. Why did it change? The city enforced rules, and my guess it is because the citizens demand it.

    I hope that you will be one of ones who will demand that inspections and all related offices do their job. It is what we deserve. We are not victims, we are apathetic to what happens in this city - sadly.

    ReplyDelete